On Sep 25, 5:45 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > An interesting talk relevant to what constitutes an "observer moment". > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VQ1KI_Jh1Q&NR=1 > > Brent
Very cool, thanks for posting. Of course, I think that his observations are entirely consistent with my hypothesis. Our native perception is a large scale view of many lesser scale sensorimotive experiences. The subordinate (from our subjective point of view) phenomena are higher frequency so that the top level awareness exists through a low frequency synthesis or summary of them. It don't think that this occurs localized only to a special, homonculous-like region of the brain, so that it is not a literal summarizing computation, but rather all of the relevant regions of the brain are actively participating on a number of frequency ranges, just like what we do as individuals every day can be summarized by looking at the behavior of an entire population over a longer period of time. What he is reaching for at the end I think is that energy is in fact a subjective experience, and it is through the sensorimotive capacity to signify and sequence it's experience, that the inference of time arises. He is still thinking in terms of there being an actual objective 'now' which our perception lags behind due to computation, but that is not the case. We are not watching the pixels on the screen change, or the screen refreshes, we are watching the images through the screen as a whole, and that happens on a greater scale of time relative to the pixels. It's not just a computational latency, it's a measure of sensorimotive intensity: significance. The qualities he mentions: Brightness Size Numerosity Motion Looming Sequence complexity Number of events Temporal frequence Stimulus visability These are the indicators of subjective significance in visual terms. They are examples experiences with a high volume of sensorimotive intensity. You can look at it as computational latency to process heavier flows of data with more consequences as more neurons are excited, but that is only if you compare the experience to an inanimate object or break the perception down into it's constituent isolated components. These obscure the universal principle at work because the example we are using is this massive human sized experience, sort of like trying to find out how carbonation bubbles work by looking a giant, beach ball sized bubble. Our trillion-neuron psyche is so huge that it warps and distorts and drifts slowly through the air, distracting us from the intrinsic coherence and closure of the bubble. It wobbles and stretches, but it still does what the champagne bubble does most of the time - maintains a coherent inertial frame of perception, a frame from which 'time' arises, not one that keeps up with any kind of external 'time'. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
